Patrick Nziwu & Ors V. Stephen Onuorah & Ors (2002)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
M. A. BELGORE, J.S.C.
The respondents in this appeal were the plaintiffs at the trial court against the present appellants. The claim was for a declaration of title to a piece of land called Evurevu situate in Nsukka Judicial Division of former Anambra State. The plaintiffs got judgment at the trial court. The present appellant appealed to Court of Appeal which upheld the trial court’s decision. A further appeal is now before Supreme Court. The appeal to this court is on mixed ground of law and facts and it was filed with leave of this court.
The declaration sought at the trial court, in a representative capacity, was that the land in question belonged to them exclusively having been in possession from time immemorial through their forefathers who first settled on the land. The whole evidence before the trial court indicated that the respondents, rather than appellants, proved they were entitled to the land. The entire evidence is not law but facts on which trial court relied. Court of Appeal found no reason to disturb the decision of trial court. Unless special circumstance is clearly manifested in the record no appellate court should substitute its own findings of facts for those of the trial court. Special circumstances in this instance may be admission of inadmissible evidence, e.g. matters not pleaded and therefore not in issue being relied upon in the decision of the trial court, or where there was no evidence in support of the reasons for the findings crucial for the decision; or where the decision on all the evidence before the court is perverse or has led to a miscarriage of justice. The appellate court will also interfere with findings of fact by trial court where there are clear conflicts in the parties evidence before it and that court fails to resolve those conflicts and merely relied on a party’s evidence. This court in several cases over the years has considered matters relating to bindingness of trial court’s findings on fact that I need refer to only a few. See Alakija v. Abdullahi (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt 552) 1; Ngillari v. N.I.C.O.N (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt.560) 1; Agbabiaka v. Saibu (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt 571) 534; Okelola v. Boyle (1998) 2 NWLR (pt.539) 533; Okpiri v. Jonah (1961) 1 SCNLR 174; Ude v. Chimbo (1998) 12 NWLR (pt. 577) 169. These are concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal on the facts adduced in evidence. Despite the grounds of appeal alleging error in law, I find no law but only facts involved in this appeal. I have not found any special circumstance whereby I will interfere with findings of fact by trial court and Court of Appeal. I therefore find no substance in this appeal and I dismiss it with N10,000.00 costs to respondents.
SC.180/1992
